Sasebo,
Thank you for the report.
"Japan AI is going to use it's fleets in a ahistorical way;we are starting the Pacific War in 1939 not 1941 anyway. Unless Rocoteh completely changed this to start in 1941 we are just going to have to live with the odd naval losses I think. Note that I think a human player can handle things for the most part;I don't know how you can get a Japan AI in this scenario to play well outside of mainland asia." Sasebo
Right now I do not plan a 1941 version of the scenario.
Such a scenario would produce more historical results, but it
would also limit the number of choices players have if one compare
to 1939 start.
"Rocoteh: About the RR: I am willing to try it with the 8 moves per road, that seems an acceptable compromise. It will cut down on the Soviets enormous advantage of interior lines at least. I think the change is workable, and the lost production due to no RR is not a big deal IMO. I say give it a try."
Sasebo
Its possible I will introduce it in the 362x326 version to get some
feedback, before it will be included in the standard version.
"About the Hidden Nationality issue: Yes, playtest it for sure, but it might work out. The AI nuetrals don't have huge fleets of subs anyway;and the AI in general is very profligate in using up it's navies. The main thing is whether the locked alliance prevents attacks on allies and whether it prevents all those stupid war declarations that send the AI off in unhistoric directions(i.e. US invading South America FIRST!?? Losing a few extra ships here and there should not be a big deal." Sasebo
Yes as i have stated earlier I still think its very interesting idea
that should be tested.
"Japan playtest, week 40, 1939- 3 more Communist China armor appear and attack! Where are they coming from??? I've cut their rubber supply but their Oil is out of range. Communist China is MUCH harder for Japan to deal with from what I've seen so far. They are in fact on the offensive and I am just holding them back. I did not start the game with anything capable of taking out their special forts in the eastern cities anyway,except my two SNLF. I've had to destroy two small stacks of infantry and about 5 tanks from C.China so far. " Sasebo
That is good news. I mean that AI is more of a challenge.
"If more of my fleet had started as veterans this would have been better. Regulars are tough to promote sometimes. I lost a CA attacking a DD;I think the new defense values are working well. Also, this is the first game I've played with CV and a good air force to start; I love it! CVs rule!2
Sasebo
I will make carrier-based air more lethal in version 1.4.
"A pity we don't have a rail system like in the Activision version(Call to power); rails were only 1/5 a point, and even maglevs way late in the game were only 1/10, and both were expensive to build in terms of public works. The unlimited movement and capacity is the really broken part here. I hope they fix this in Civ 4." Sasebo
Yes I agree. I played both Call To Power 1&2 some years ago.
"Edit: Could it be set in the editor that rails have the same move rate as roads? I know that probably sounds silly,but I know what I am trying to say... " sASEBO
The problem is that you can not edit railroads at all. Thus you can
only edit move rate for roads.
One can note that the quantity-aspect of railroad-movement
have been standard in computer wargames for many years now.
(In these games there is a limit on how many units that
can be moved with rail each turn.)
Hopefully it will be introduced in Civ 4.
Thank you and welcome back.
Rocoteh
Thank you for the report.
"Japan AI is going to use it's fleets in a ahistorical way;we are starting the Pacific War in 1939 not 1941 anyway. Unless Rocoteh completely changed this to start in 1941 we are just going to have to live with the odd naval losses I think. Note that I think a human player can handle things for the most part;I don't know how you can get a Japan AI in this scenario to play well outside of mainland asia." Sasebo
Right now I do not plan a 1941 version of the scenario.
Such a scenario would produce more historical results, but it
would also limit the number of choices players have if one compare
to 1939 start.
"Rocoteh: About the RR: I am willing to try it with the 8 moves per road, that seems an acceptable compromise. It will cut down on the Soviets enormous advantage of interior lines at least. I think the change is workable, and the lost production due to no RR is not a big deal IMO. I say give it a try."
Sasebo
Its possible I will introduce it in the 362x326 version to get some
feedback, before it will be included in the standard version.
"About the Hidden Nationality issue: Yes, playtest it for sure, but it might work out. The AI nuetrals don't have huge fleets of subs anyway;and the AI in general is very profligate in using up it's navies. The main thing is whether the locked alliance prevents attacks on allies and whether it prevents all those stupid war declarations that send the AI off in unhistoric directions(i.e. US invading South America FIRST!?? Losing a few extra ships here and there should not be a big deal." Sasebo
Yes as i have stated earlier I still think its very interesting idea
that should be tested.
"Japan playtest, week 40, 1939- 3 more Communist China armor appear and attack! Where are they coming from??? I've cut their rubber supply but their Oil is out of range. Communist China is MUCH harder for Japan to deal with from what I've seen so far. They are in fact on the offensive and I am just holding them back. I did not start the game with anything capable of taking out their special forts in the eastern cities anyway,except my two SNLF. I've had to destroy two small stacks of infantry and about 5 tanks from C.China so far. " Sasebo
That is good news. I mean that AI is more of a challenge.
"If more of my fleet had started as veterans this would have been better. Regulars are tough to promote sometimes. I lost a CA attacking a DD;I think the new defense values are working well. Also, this is the first game I've played with CV and a good air force to start; I love it! CVs rule!2
Sasebo
I will make carrier-based air more lethal in version 1.4.
"A pity we don't have a rail system like in the Activision version(Call to power); rails were only 1/5 a point, and even maglevs way late in the game were only 1/10, and both were expensive to build in terms of public works. The unlimited movement and capacity is the really broken part here. I hope they fix this in Civ 4." Sasebo
Yes I agree. I played both Call To Power 1&2 some years ago.
"Edit: Could it be set in the editor that rails have the same move rate as roads? I know that probably sounds silly,but I know what I am trying to say... " sASEBO
The problem is that you can not edit railroads at all. Thus you can
only edit move rate for roads.
One can note that the quantity-aspect of railroad-movement
have been standard in computer wargames for many years now.
(In these games there is a limit on how many units that
can be moved with rail each turn.)
Hopefully it will be introduced in Civ 4.
Thank you and welcome back.
Rocoteh